The EU claimed it had strong-armed another 16 ICT firms into putting their names to an effort to reduce electricity consumption in their broadband kit and datacentres.
Brussels has declared that the firms' commitment could lead them to reduce their leccy consumption by as much as 50 per cent, should they subsequently not ignore …

COMMENTS

UK politicains solved this by passing wind

Wind farms produce really expensive electricity. The government insists that distributors buy a percentage of their power from wind. The cost is passed straight to consumers. Thanks to the construction of massive off shore wind farms, the price of electricity in the UK should rise high enough that:

Marketing?

No

There are two roles that a company can commit to. One is an endorser, which includes those who manufacture equipment or provide services. The other is participant meaning operator of the data centre such as the telecomms operators listed. The participants listed have actually committed to doing something about their energy efficiency.

Some of those euro telco operators have been aggressive in pushing the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in a data centre to reduce their energy use and have been working very hard to make the server vendors build kit that doesn't need to be run in a fridge. This has resulted in the ETSI operating temperature and humidity ranges which are actually a stretch target unlike the "expanded" AHSRAE which finally recognised that all the vendor warranties already covered a wider range and continues to fix the status quo and cooling inefficiency costing operators money and energy.

One thing is guranteed to get results

What type of power?

Nellie Kroes was kicked to Brussels because she wasn't tolerated in NL anymore, or so some folks in NL would say.

At any rate, the strong-arming offensive seems to me skewed: It doesn't talk about what kind of power to reduce. "Leccy" as the reporter fancyful noted, but how was that "Leccy" produced? Coal? Wind? Sun? Water? Nuclear? Not all of them are bad enough to cut down, mind you.

Again, the woman raises a notable cause, but kind of misses the point completely. And goes ignoring the people...

I was having a mad thought at lunch...

...how much would be saved if we stopped using HTML for e-mail? No pictures, colours etc; just good ol' plain text and meaningful content. If pictures etc were important, they could simply be attached.

This might not only be green, but it would save me wanting to commit physical violence against the marketing-turd that sends out a hee-ooj mail, with masses of images/links that says...err...sweet f. a. when you get down to it.